Ulrika seems to have used her Sun column to decide, like so many on this forum, that Matt is arrogant, cocky and oozing desperation.

I'd suggest this is particularly hypocritical coming from Ulrika for a variety of reasons:

1) She's hardly been treated to an easy media ride in the past for the way she's acted in public, so deciding to slate someone's personality on the basis of precisely no meetings (according to Matt's Twitter response) seems rather as if she's hurling stones from the veranda of her glass mansion.

2) She's been a contestant in several reailty TV shows and must have some idea of how the editing of VTs and the general production can skew a perspective. She even alludes to the producers' manipulative tendencies in her column - so why assume that the push to get Matt to win is a production conspiracy, and the way he's presented on TV is entirely natural?

3) With so many other people exhibiting really bad behaviour and so many other things to grind an axe about, why make herself look like an embittered old hag by attacking someone simply because she doesn't like them very much? Apart from anything else, there's no vacancy for that kind of thing - Julie Burchill and Caitlin Moran get paid far more to do it better.

4) Possibly not as strong as my other arguments, but she was crap on DOI anyway

Given the prevailing mood on here though, I imagine a number of people think she was justified. So what does everyone think of Ulrika's latest publicity-seeking manoeuvre at someone else's expense?

Agree with you. Uncalled for and hypocritical.

I joked before the SF in another thread that Ulrika's urging viewers to vote for Gareth was a kiss of death for him.

Unfortunately for Gareth, it turned out to be so.

I couldn't give a stuff what Ulrika thinks & I doubt many others do either.

I'm hardly surprised considering that she's never really displayed any modicum of professionalism. I prefer Beth but I hope it doesn't affect Matt's chances.

It won't. Matt fans may be annoyed at Ulrika but they'll vote for him anyway & those who don't like Matt and agree with what she said wouldn't have voted for him regardless.

But it's not a publicity-seeking manoeuvre is it. She is paid to write a column, give her opinion, that is what she has done. She see's Matt as arrogant, egotisical, cocky, all the things that so many people see.

She dos'nt have to meet Matt to have gathered this opinion of him, it is there for all to see every Sunday. The programme is live, no editing. Did'nt read the column, but from what you have said, I'd say she got him down to a tee!

It was a bit random for her to come out with that stuff!. I found it a bit odd!. Don't quite understand why she even made a comment on Matt?

The fact this article was in the Sun probably says it all. It's a rag of a paper with largely "rag" type views. If Ulrika really thinks anyone is in the slightest bit interested in her views then she must be completely deluded. And if she can't find anything more worthy to write about other than to slag off someone else then the Sun should show her the door.

Question though if it was about someone other than Matt would you still be saying the same thing or would you be on here posting in agreement of what had been written?

The whole point of the tabloids is to stir up controversy and scandal so they will have no intention of showing her the door as she is doing exactly what she is paid to do and that is to create headlines.

As I say it seems that a rag is only a rag when it is slagging off someones favourite yet it is the gospel truth in regards to other people.

Ulrika who?

She's right though.

I suspect that if The Sun offered to pay you the amount she's getting to write drivel for it, you'd write some too. I'm sure they wouldn't pay her anything if they thought no one was interested in what she writes.

I don't ever read The Sun, or any of the Murdoch rags, but I'm sure I could cobble something together if they paid me enough.

But she's right.

No one cares what she's got to say anyway.

That's a bit insulting! If she had written the same about Beth (who I like) or Luke (who I'm quite indifferent about) I would still have the same view.

It's not insulting but a general question while you say you would have the same view there are plenty on here who are up in arms when someone is written about their favourite but are quite happy when it is someone else in the firing line.

I was just enquiring not as a dig but out of curiosity more than anything.

Who, or what, is Ulrika Jonsson exactly.

Has she any qualifications to offer any opinions on anything?

For me it's more a 'why' than a 'who' or a 'what'.

In answer to your second question, apparently The Sun pays her to offer her opinions. She has a family to feed, so she's hardly going to decline on the basis she's unqualified.

If this has had any impact whatsoever on Matt's vote (which I doubt) it will probably have been a positive one. People who didn't like him anyway still won't like him, people who would've voted for him anyway are unlikely to change their minds because of what Ulrika writes in The Sun, so the only people who might be affected are people who don't mind him but probably wouldn't have bothered voting but whose sense of justice makes them feel that Ulrika's 'attack' was unfair so they will now vote for him to redress the balance.

Maybe she has some kind of personal gripe with him - that the rest of us are not aware of. Not only unprofessional of her - buy tacky and childish.

I actually agree with Ulrika, he is extremely arrogant and unlikable!

Something which he demonstrated rather well last night.

OTT reaction when he 'made' the final and totally ungracious and grudging reaction when Beth deservedly won!

Hopefully he will return back to obscurity as a bit part player somewhere in soapland.

Fair enough, I misunderstood.

its does not matter if you agree or disagree with Ulrika.

She is paid, its her job, so if they ask Ulrika to do it she has to do it. I would be more up in arm if Ulrika got paid for not doing than doing it.

While that is true if she was specifically told to write a piece slagging off Matt; I can't help thinking though, that it is more likely she was told to write a piece on DOI and that was all she manage.

Have you ever stopped and wonder if she was told to write that in the hope it would drum up sympathy votes for Matt.

Also you do understand reporters can not just write what they want and just print it, Its has to be checked over by the editor etc. So if they had told her to just write about the show they would have told her to go back and redo the article.

What she wrote is what the editors etc wanted because it causes controversy

She was just telling the truth, pure and simple.